Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmoy | Hacker News Reader

You're not wrong about some mainland Chinese refusing to believe (or never learning in the first place) anything about 6/4. My wife is among them, or used to be at least. Then again if you ask the average US freshman if the US military shot and killed a bunch of student protestors, you'd find a number who wouldn't believe you. Difference is in the US a trivial we search answers that question for you, while in China all record of 6/4 is scrubbed, and even acronyms that you use to mention it get scrubbed, etc.

View on HN

It isn't 6/4, but May 35th (5/35). It isn't completely scrubbed, many know it happened, they just don't talk about it because (a) they don't care and (b) they aren't allowed to (in that order). Historical reflection is where the Chinese gov really clamps down, and even the cultural revolution is taboo even if everyone knows just about what happened.

Kent state happened so long ago that most American students just don't know, or anything much that happened during Vietnam, which our history classes don't seem to have time to cover. In china, its a bit worse, as they have the siege of Changchun (the communists basically starved out a few hundred thousand civilians), or the 1938 yellow river flood, where the nationalists killed millions of civilians to thwart the Japanese. In those contexts, Tiananmen is just a blip.

AFAIK as a Chinese, the 1938 incident is known to many since it was said to be Jiang's decision. As of Changchun, I saw that topic a few times in some forums 10+ years ago.

The things people want to know change over time as well. Now, China is feeling its power and strength like a growing teenager (not very accurate, but you get what I mean), so the glory of the past, now and future is what people want to know. Zhanlang 2 (War Wolf 2)'s phenomenal financial success (close to 1bn usd box office maybe?) is a recent strong signal.

Chest beating is a thing in the USA also, some of our block buster movies can be like that.

> "growing teenager"

This is an incrediable naive and patronizing phrase to describe China's accumulation of power.

As a matter of fact, China's ascending is the most peaceful and constrained among all past super powers in the world history.

Peaceful and constrained to whom?

I guess a better question, so that I can understand, is when are you considering their ascension to have begun?

Also, the person you responded to is Chinese. I suppose they can be patronizing if they want? In fact, I can't think of a person more able to be justifiably patronizing. I find criticism from within to be better than criticism from abroad, generally speaking.

But, mostly I just am curious about what point in time you're using as the start of China's ascension. If it is 1990, I'm inclined to agree. If it is 1945, I am skeptical.

I specifically mentioned that analogy was not accurate. I have to add that it's the kind of feeling that directly reflects teenager's physical growth, taller, quicker, faster, stronger, etc. Perhaps my original analogy led you to relate to the emotional side more. Especially in western societies, that can turn to more physical impact. Teenagers in China actually have that kind of things as well, but there is simply less room for them.

Another thing is, in a world with several nuclear weapon equipped states, can two such nations simply confront with each other? Look around east Asia, you have to play very carefully.

So I guess there should have been more context to put in to have a better idea of what I was trying to deliver. If some big and vague words can explain, yeah, it's cultural difference, too.

China has 5000 years of ascending to superpower status, not all of it very peaceful. If you mean China hasn't invaded another country since 1979, well, sure, I'll give you that.

Yes, I think this post pretty much frame the discussion after the "open and reform" era.

So the era just before that when they were not doing very well and we're engaged in non peaceful activities doesn't count. Got it.

I am not sure what you want to say.

This post is about Xi, which took office in 2012. And the aspects initiates my post is about China's recent movement to more openly show off its power.

What's the point of "when they were not doing very well" in this context?

> we're engaged in non peaceful activities

What does this refer to?

I mean, you count China's rise as coinciding with the time just after they were being hostile to their neighbors. A rosy filter to be sure.

I said China's rise is the most peaceful among all super powers in history, I did not say that China's rise will be that it is nice to neighbors.

I also did not count any timing. I just said it's the most peaceful.

Realistically, a super power by definition means it wields more power than others, that definitely means unfriendly behavior to others, especially the neighbors. That's why China uses the word "the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation", that's both a correct and accurate slogan, and a non-aggressive way of rosy filtering what gonna happen.

> As a matter of fact, China's ascending is the most peaceful and constrained among all past super powers in the world history.

Alternative facts, maybe. Just look up the South China Sea, Doklam, constant agitation with India and Japan to see how peaceful China's rise is.

Well, China has solid legal ground to claim that she owns those areas. Peaceful rise does not translate to blindly avoiding conflicts.

China does not have solid legal founds for their claims, they do have a bunch of anecdotes though (e.g. The nationalists got a small USN boat to take them to visit them, so they think this means the USA must have approved of their claim).

>magically appearing artificial islands

>solid legal ground

one of those things has to be false.

> As a matter of fact, China's ascending is the most peaceful and constrained among all past super powers in the world history

The late forties granted the United States a global nuclear, and near industrial, monopoly. We didn’t exploit it.

For everyone else who doesn't know what "6/4" refers to, it refers to the date of the Tiananmen Square protests:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1...

To be exact, it refers to the massacre. The protests lasted for a long time before the crackdown.

A Day To Remember. A short video where they ask Chinese University students, "what day is today." Filmed in 2005...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCPkkGArVy4

I watch this clip a lot around the 6/4 anniversary. This is not the original copy, that's somewhere on Vimeo I think.

Wow, the discomfort is intense. How much is that from being video recorded w/o consent?

That's in 2005.

CCP's online control only got worst these years.

Today if you ask average young people on the street in China about 4 Jun, some (If not many) of them may even don't understand what you're talking about.

Then again if you ask the average US freshman if the US military shot and killed a bunch of student protestors, you'd find a number who wouldn't believe you.

Saying "US military" is somewhat misleading.

The soldiers who shot and killed four students at Kent State University were part of what we call the "National Guard".[1] These are reserve military units.

National Guardsmen usually have full-time civilian jobs and are only called into service when needed. Sometimes these soldiers are called "weekend warriors". A National Guard unit is controlled by an individual state up until the time that the US government needs its services.

It would be more correct to call those soldiers "Ohio state military". At the time of the shootings, the National Guard unit involved was under the control of Governor Rhodes of the State of Ohio.[2]

There is a big distinction in the USA between "federal" (aka national US) and "state" government. This distinction isn't necessarily clear to foreigners. Granted, this distinction isn't necessarily clear to about 70% of US citizens either. But that's an entire other discussion.

Edit: the law has been updated since then, but something called the Posse Comitatus Act was in effect at the time.[3] It is against the law for the US military to act as a domestic police force:

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_S... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Downvotes? Really? I've never complained about downvotes before, but this is rich!

Today's millennials aren't interested in understanding "federalism", which is one of the founding tenets of the USA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com